ED 041 027

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

TE 001 950

Hess, Karen M.; Maxwell, John C.What to Do about Nonstandard Dialects: A Review ofthe Literature.Upper Midwest Regional Educational Lab., Inc.,Minneapolis, Minn.15 Dec 6952p.

EDRS Price MF-$0.25 HC-$2.70American English, Dialects, *Dialect Studies,English Instruction, Language Handicaps, *LanguageInstruction, Language Research, LanguageStandardization, Language Usage, *LiteratureReviews, *Nonstandard Dialects, Regional Dialects,Sociolinguistics, Standard Spoken Usage, TeacherEducation, *Tenl

ABSTRACTAs part of the development of a self-teaching

program for instructing teachers of English and elementary languagearts about dialects, a comprehensive search of the literature ondialects and dialect learning, from 1960 to the present, was made.This paper sets forth some of the major ideas, points of view, andrecommendations revealed by the review of the literature. Fonowing adiscussion of the responsibility of the schools in recognizing andaccepting the varieties of the English language, the results of thereview of the literature are reported in seven sections: (1) earlyresearch on "correcting" usage uerrors," (2) descriptive dialectstudies--regional, ethnic, and social, (3) studies of the effects ofspeaking a nonstandard dialect on learning to read, learninggenerally, job opportunities, and social status, (4) descriptions ofcurrent programs in augmenting dialects, (6) statements about whatteachers need to know and do to deal effectively with the language ofspeakers of nonstandard dialects, and (7) research on teacherpreparation and classroom practices involving language. An extensivebibliography and a glossary of terms used in the review are provided.(JM)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION a WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

r,. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

04.1 PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY,r4

CD

WHAT TO DO ABOUT NONSTANDARD DIALECTS:

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

by

Karen M. Hess, Ph.D.John C. Maxwell, Ph.D.

(with the assistance of Barbara Long)

December 15, 1969

Upper Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc.Minneapolis, Minnesota

i

WHAT TO DO ABOUT NONSTANDARD DIALECTS:

A PEVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

by

Karen M. Hess, Ph.D.

PREFACE

Early in 1969, the Upper Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory began

planning a programmed, self-teaching program for instructing teachers of

English and elementary language arts about dialects suggeSting what, if

anything, to do about the occurrence of nonstandard dialects in the speech

of children.

As part of the development; process, the Laboratory staff made a com-

prehensive search of the literature on dialects and dialect learning as a

basis for setting a course of action. Much of the literature was scattered;

much was contained in obscure, out-of-print and generally unavailable

sources and much of it had to be summarized and reshaped in the light of

a specific audience and purpose.

The following sections set forth some of the major ideas, points of

view, and recommendations which were revealed by this review of the litera-

ture. It is offered as a means of helping others, closer to the "firing

line," to learn what the Laboratory learned and to 0%.aw their own conclusions

and courses of action.

For the Laboratory, this information has led to the preparation of a

self-teaching program for inservice use which creates capability in teachers

to understand ten basic concepts about dialects, to write broad phonetic

transcriptions of "live" speech, to recognize and classify nonstandard utter-

ances, to determine which utterances are critical matters for an individualized

RIF

curriculum for each child, and to select, and store currently available teach-

ing materials to apply to individual needs,

The inservice program is being tested at this time and will be refined

and retested in hopes of making it available to school districts in September

1970.

INTRODUCTION

VARIETIES OF LANGUAGE

Everyone speaks a dialect, a variety of language. The language used

is influenced by the speaker's age, sex, education, occuption, avocation,

social class and regional and ethnic background. It is further influenced

by social situations in which he usually operates. The complex interaction

of these factors produces the individual's unique *ay of speaking, his

idiolect. Fortunately, although no two people speak in exactly the same

way, communication is possible through the shring of more-or-less conven-

tional phonetic, semantic, and grammatical systems in the language.

Standard English -- The phonetic, semantic, and grammatical patterns

which are accepted and used by the majority of the educated English-

speaking people in the United States form a series of regionally

standard American English dialects. According to C.C. Fries,

standard English, with its regional variations, is "the particular

type of English which is used in the conduct of the important affairs

of our people. It is also the type of English used by the socially

acceptable of most of our communities and insofar as that is true,

it has become a social or class dialect in the United States."

(Fries, 1940, p. 13).

Variety in Standard English -- Standard English is not simply one

formal level. It must be recognized that "standard English in any

absolute sense, is a myth" (Cassidy, 1968, p. 375). One of the

most definitive statements on the functional varieites to be found

within standard English is that of John Kenyon (1963). He views

standard English as comprised of a broad spectrum of usages, subject

to change, according to circumstance and over time. Because of this

vast complexity, it is today thought fruitless to speak of "correct"

usage. The tendency is now to speak of "appropriate" or "suitable"

usage.

Nonstandard English --.As will be seen from the following review of

the literature, it is well-documented that many people do not speak

any of the varieties of standard English. Those who do not are said

to speak a nonstandard (not a sub-standard) dialect. Frequently

those who speak a nonstandard dialect are the "disadvantaged" and

those from ethnic 'groups.

Varieties of Languavandtjlelt.esility of the Schools --

Educators and linguists have observed that these speakers of non-

standard dialects often encounter learning difficulties due to the

language barrier, and they may encounter social stigma and career

handicaps. It is as inescapable fact that language patterns are

persistent social markers, though the degree to which nonstandard

language affects learning is not fully studied. Walter Loban,

University of California, Berkeley, has stated that "unless they can

learn to use standard English, many pupils will be denied access to

economic opportunities or to entrance to many social groups"' (Loban,

1966, p. 1). This sentiment has been reiterated by other educators

including Muriel Crosby (1967), Robert Pooley (1967), Albert

Kitzhaber (1967), and San-Su C. Lin (1967).

Representative of statements made by linguists is the comment

of Harold Allen, University of Minnesota, who feels that many people

are denied entrance to the Great Society "because they are handi-

capped socially, educationally, and vocationally through their re-

striction to nonstandard varieties of English" (Allen, 1967, p. 6).

This is essentially the view of linguists Raven McDavid (g. 1969),

William Labov (b. 1968, g. 1964), Davenport Plumer (1968), William

A. Stewart (c. 1967), Lee Pederson (1964), and many others.

Professional organizations such as the National Council of

Teachers of English, the Center for Applied Linguistics, and various

Project English Centers and Curriculum Development Centers through-

out the country have expressed similar concern.

Many linguists, particularly sociolinguists, have expressed

concern over the need for public recognition of and acceptance of

nonstandard dialect.

There are a few linguists and educators who do not feel that

anything need be done with speakers of nonstandard dialects other

than help:Lng the society recognize and accept the nonstandard dialects.

The most vocal of this group is James Sledd, Northwestern University,

who puts forth strongly-stated arguments against tampering with the

student's dialect (Sledd, 1965). Likewise Kaplan feels that: standard

English is too often taught as a "vehicle for assimilation and

standardization of the individual within the culture" (Kaplan, 1969,

p. 388). He questions whether this is a desirable goal. Davenport

Plumer also comments on the "moral" question of whether schools ought

to attempt to teach a standard dialect (Plumer, 1968).

Augmentation as the Objective -- A search of the literature reveals,

however, that the majority of educators and linguists who have written

on the topic do feel that it is the responsibility of the schools not

only to recognize and accept nonstandard dialects, but also to attempt

to add certain crucial elements of standard English to the language

resources of the speaker of a nonstandard dialect. The process of

adding to is called augmentation. A publication of the NCTE Curriculum

Commission, 1966, states: "The large part of the profession holds that

the school cart, and must, exert influence to modify the oral and

written usage of children and youth. At the least, children must learn

about and possibly use a variety of levels of language suitable to

differing circumstances (Ends and Issues, 1966, pp. 8-9). A more re-

cent NCTE publication states ". . the responsibility falls upon the

teacher of the language arts to provide a person instruction in the

standard English of the region if every citizen in the community is to

be able to fulfill.his potentials" (Nonstandard Dialect, p. 1). The

statement made by Harold Allen again seems to be representative of

the feelings of most linguists and educators that augmentation, not

deletion or "correction", is the most fruitful approach to take with

speakers of nonstandard dialect:

Although there are still those persons who seem

to advocate a ruthless replacement of the non-

standard variety by standard, the weight of

evidence from psychology and linguistics as well

as from the related discipline Of the teaching

of English as a second language, argues rather

that standard English should be taught to these

people as a second dialect without prejudice to

their first dialect. The goal is addition, not

substitution (Allen, 1967, p. 6).

-5_

Similar statements are found in the writings of Lobar). (1966 &

1968), McDavid (b. 1967), Stewart (a. 1964 and c. 1967), Pederson

(d. 1965), Lloyd (1963), Pooley (1960), Higgins (1960), and San-Su C.

Lin (1967). Augmentation is also the approach recommended by the

NCTE Task Force for the Disadvantaged (Language Programs for the

Disadvantaael, 1965).

The Upper Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory concurs with

the view of augmentation held by the majority of linguists and

educators. Research evidence and the opinions of skilled oboervers

indicates that t is undesirable (and perhaps impossible) to pursue

a course of "deletion" or "correction" of nonstandard dialect

patterns. The objective, from the Lab's perspective, is to enlarge

the student's linguistic resources for his use in the varieties of

social and economic situations with which he must deal and to acknow-

ledge that his home dialect has real and important usefulness to him.

OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE REVIEWED

The existing literature on dialect/usage is extensive. To facilitate

discussion of the wide variety of literature reviewed, seven arbitrary

divisions have been made. There is much overlap in these divisions.

1. Early research on "correcting" usage "errors."

2. Descriptive dialect studies - -- regional, ethnic, and social.

3. Studies of the effect of speaking a nonstandard dialect

on learning to read, learning generally, job opportunities,

and social status.

4. Descriptions of the success of programs on general lan-

g,lage development and on specific aspects of dialect:.

5. Descriptions of current programs in augmenting dialects.

6. Statements about what teachers need to know and do todeal effectively with the language of speakers of non-standard dialects.

7. Research on teacher preparation and classroom practicesinvolving language.

The literature reviewed in this report is limited in several respects.

It deals primarily with the language of native speakers of English in

grades K-12, not with speakers of foreign languages nor with pre-school

children or adults. It is limited to the literature from 1960 to the

present, with a few notable exceptions. The concentration is on aspects

of lexicon, usage, pronunciation, and grammar. Only representative studies

are specifically described. Other studies, similar in design and results,

may be found in the bibliography. Finally, attention has been focused pri-

marily on the pedagogical devices for augmenting dialects.

A glossary of the terms used in this report is found in Appendix A.

The terms defined include: dialect, functional variety of usage, grammar, idio-

lect linguage, lexicon; linguistics, morphology, nonstandard English, phonology,

prestige dialect, regional dialect, social dialect, syntax; standard English,

and usage.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

"CORRECTING" USAGE "ERRORS"

The historical view of dialect differences was that they were "errors"

that needed to be "corrected." The studies which have been done on the

efficacy of "correcting" usage "errors" via the traditional means of formal

grammatical study are numerous and fairly conclusive. Too many studies have

. been conducted to report here. The most revealing and coucise statement

made on the subject is found in The Encycloaeclia of Educational Research

-7-

which summarizes the research done up to 1960: "Summaries of research

in the teaching of language have consistently concluded that there is no

shred of evidence to substantiate the continued emphasis on grammar

prevalent in most classrooms" (Searles and Carlson, 1958).

A share of the responsibility for the ineffectiveness of the past

practices of "correcting" usage "errors" must be taken by textbooks. One

observer has said, "About nine-tenths of the statements about language in

the textbooks disregard what people say. . . . Textbooks are full of

dream-world statements about what things might be like if only English-

speaking people would shape up -- if they would quit using English the way

they do and start using it some other way" (Bostain, 1966, p. 20). Similar

criticisms of textbooks based on analytical studies have been made by

Carroll (1963), Malmstrom (1959), Womack (1959), and Pooley (Ends and Issues,

1966, p. 46).

On the other hand, research has provided some evidence that the "lin-

guistic" approach to studying language -- the objective, descriptive, predic-

tive approach -- in a framework of transformational grammar does seem to be

effective. Most of this research has dealt with the improvement of writing

skills (Bateman and Zidonis, 1966), (White, 1964), (Zidonis, 1965), and

(Mellon, 1968) but not with spoken English.

DESCRIPTIVE DIALECT STUDIES

Linguistic Analysis -- Descriptive studies analyze the language used

in terms of the specific elements of the language which show variation --

phonology, morphology, and syntax. Almost all the research reported

under regional, ethnic, and social dialect studies concentrates heavily

on the phonologic or syntactic aspect of dialect. Labov, for example,

concentrates very heavily on phonology as the variable in all his studies.

Three Over-Lapping Aspects of Descriptive Dialect Studies --

Descriptive dialect studies have been conducted on several aspects of

dialect: regional, ethnic, and social. Obviously these three aspects

are interrelated; the artificial distinction drawn between them in

this report has been made for ease of discussion. The interrelation

of these three aspects may be seen in the contrastive studies of

standard and nonstandard English which have been done. Most of the

studies conclude that the nonstandard dialects are well-ordered,

highly structured, highly developed language systems (Baratz, 1968),

(Labov, d. 1966), and (McDavid a. 1965, gl 1969 and h. 1968). Descrip-

tions have been g!.ven of the various distinct linguistic features of

the dialects studied in an attempt to provide accurate and useful data

for.cducational programs. A cautionary word must be stated at this

point: The data are not yet complete. Further investigation is

needed; and since language is dynamic and constantly changing, it is

doubtful if it is strictly possible for the data ever to be "complete."

Regional Dialect Studies -- The study of regional dialects has been

going on for several decades and is perhaps the study about which there

is the least controversy. The linguistic atlases are comprehensive

field studies of regional varieties in language which have focused prin-

cipally on phonology and lexicon. A new project summarizing the many

studies of regional dialects is the undertaking of a Dictionary of

American Regional English which concentrates on lexicon rather than on

phonology (Cassidy, 1968).

Materials for the schools which describe regional variations have

been developed by Roger Shuy, Discovering American Dialects, Jean

Malmstrom, Dialects, U.S.A., and the University of Minnesota Project

English Center (1968).

Ethnic Dialect Studies -- Study of the particular variations found

in the speech of given ethnic groups is a more recent phenomenon and

has provided much useful information. Studies of the speech of the

Mexican-American have been done by Hernandez (1968) and by Kopp (1967) ,

The speech of the Puerto Rican has been examined by Labov (c. 1965).

Most .ethnic study- however, has been focused on the speech of

the Negro, particularly the linguistic features of Negro nonstandard

dialects.

The author, title and date of some of the more significant

studies are found in Appendix B.

Considerable controversy has centered on the question of whether

the Negro nonstandard speaker is delayed in language development.

Joan Baratz has sought to dispel what she calls some of the

,current "myths" about Negro speech (Baratz, 1968). She stresses that

although the dialect of the. Negro is distinct and is different from

standard English, it is not defective nor inferior. This is a commonly

held view among most linguists -- the black dialect is different, not

defective. Other "myths" that Baratz discounts are the doctrine of

genetic inferiority, the social pathology theory which describes the

Negro as a "sick white man," the linguistic incompetence theory that

Negro speakers are virtually destitute, and the theory that the speech

of the Negro is a deterent to cognitive growth. All of these "myths".

have been found in print and many have had an effect on teaching practices

in the past years.

Baratz and Povich (1967) studied the language development of a group

of black Head Start children and found that: "the Negro Head Start child

is not delayed in language acquisition -- the majority of his utterances

-10--

are on the kernel and transformational levels ." This applies not

,lack of a language but the mastery of a somewhat different language.

Social Dialect Studies -- Like the study of ethnic dialect, the study

of social dialect is of recent origin. The bulk of the studies has

been concentrated on lower socio-economic groups of all ethnic and

racial origins but they have focused, understandably, on populations

of speakers from minority ethnic groups and on the language of the

"disadvantaged" urban dwellers.

One of the most comprehensive and significant of these studies

was that done by William Labov and reported in The Social Stratifica-

tion of English in New York City. This study clearly illustrates the

procedures which sociolinguists need to follow, how the data should be

analyzed, and what sociolinguists ought to be looking for.

Other studies following Labov's lead have been conducted or are

in 'process by Shuy.and others in Detroit, Johnson in Los Angeles, Fasold

and others in Washington, and Davis and others in Chicago. Limited

studies have been done in Minneapolis by Lee Pederson and others.

The authors, titles, and dates of several significant social dia-

lect studies are listed in Appendix B. Most of these studies are

restricted to limited geographic areas and include different ethnic

groups. Generally the studies conclude that social variations in lan-

guage do exist and that certain features Can be identified.

Standard English -- Several contrastive studies have concerned them-

selves with all three aspects (regional, ethnic, and social) of standard

English. They have looked at all aspects of nonstandard English rather

-11-

than any one specific aspect (Loban, 1966). Three studies provided

information on the differences between nonstandard dialects and

standard English (Templin, 1957; Thomas, 1962; and Loban, 1966). All

three reported that verb usage was the most frequent source of gram-

matical variation from standard English. Any of the studies mentioned

above also would be pertinent to the discussion of the 'differences

between nonstandard dialects and standard English.

Semantics and Dialect Study -- A few studies suggest that perhaps the

greatest cause of communication difficulty is in the lexlcon -- or in

semantics. Kaplan for example feels that phonologic and syntactic

variations are not significant in number, are not racially identified,

and are not major impediments to communication. He feels they are

merely surface manifestations of deeper separations at the cognitive

level. He concludes: "It may be that the significant differences

between 'standard' and 'nonstandard' dialect lie in the area of cogni-

tion rather than in the areas of phonology or syntax" (Kaplan, 1969,

p. 388). Donald Lloyd, after an analytic study of the English of the

central city, says that the language contains many different terms for

the same thing and that the differences are sub-cultural in origin

(Lloyd, 1963, p. 40).

Entwisle also found that "there are far-reaching differences in

semantic structures between Negro and white disadvantaged children .

differences in semantics may be of much greater importance than lags in

development" (Entwisle and Greenberger, 1968).

-12-

EFFECTS OF SPEAKING NONSTANDARD DIALECT

Much research suggests that speaking a nonstandard dialect may be

detrimental to its speakers in language development, in school learning, in

reading, in securing a job, and in achieving desired social status.

Regarding language development, Hubbard and Zarate (1967) in a review

of progress In Head Start programs, report that "the culturally disadvantaged

child is usually verbally deficient with respect to society as a whole."

The question as to whether this is an effect of using nonstandard dialect

or of being disadvantaged is not discussed. Bernstein observed that "the

language usually spoken by members of lower-class society restricts structural

organization in sentences as well as syntactical flexibility" (Green, 1965).

Bernstein goes beyond verbal behavior to cognitive functioning in general.

In three different studies, Entwisle showed the ultimate handicap is language

development in the disadvantaged child (Entwisle a. 1967, b. 1967, and c 1967).

She felt that the first-to-third grade decline in the relative position of

the slum child compared with the non-slum child paralleled the failure of

these children to become lit.n..4te. Plumer (1968) reports that four investi-

gations have provided some evidence that poor children have generally limited

vocabu: tries . Plumer also describes the findings of Bernstein and Bereiter

who both feel that the language development of the "disadvantaged" is severely

limited.

Many linguists are disenchanted with the notion of deficient develop-

ment of language among speakers of nonstandard English. They assert that the

\

studies and discussions on the' language development of children should be

considered from a point of view similar to the One expressed by Baratz, that

the language development of the speaker of nonstandard English is not deficient

not inferior -- it is merely different.

-13-

Research on reading in relation to nonstandard English does show

that the speaker of nonstandard dialects faces an extreme difficulty in

learning to read a dialect which in many respects is almost a foreign

language to him. Difficulties encountered in reading by speakers of non--

standard dialects ar,y described and discussed by Baratz and Shuy (1960),

Broz (1966), Davis (1967), Fasold (1969), Goodman (1969), Lloyd (1963),

McDavid (d. 1969), Shuy (e,.1969), Stewart (b. 1968), Wolfram and Fasold

(1969), and Labov (e. 1969).

Another area in which the speaker of a nonstandard dialect may be

handicapped is in understanding spoken staard English. Lane and others

(1967) determined that some aspects of the Negro dialect lead to differ-.

ences in perception of spoken message. Speakers of the southern Negro

dialect were less accurate when attempting to understand or comprehend

standard English than were Caucasian students from the same geographic

area and of the same social and economic level. In school a etild could

be severely handicapped by such differences; in a democracy, where the

democratic processes are conducted largely in standard English, such a handi-

cap could have serious consequences.

The relation between, the dialect spoken and employability was inves-

tigated to provide an empirical basis for the Job Corps speech training

program (Gropper et al, 1967). This study found that: (1) there are

critical speech skills that differentiate between the employable and the

non-employable and (2) that 3/4 of Job Corpsmen have deficiencies in one

or more such skills. This program replaced textbook standards of speech ade-

quacy with standards set by employers as the basis for instruction -- aa

interesting innovation.

Putnam and O'Hern have provided evidence that features of nonstandard

dialect are negatively evaluated by standard speakers (1955). In a pre-

-14-

publication manuscript, Waltter A. Wolfram (1969) stresses the sociological

importance of dialects and how to approach language which is "socially

obtrusive." He states that a primary purpose for teaching standard English

is to allow students to use language which is not "socially stigmatized."

Wolfram distinguishes between linguistic features with "sharp" stratifica-

tionl and those with "gradient" stratification.2 He concludes that the

features with "sharp stratification" are of more social significance and

need to be treated first in school programs. His study of nonstandard lan-

guage further reveals that grammatical features tend to show "sharp stratifi-

cation" and phonological features tend to show "gradient stratification."

Therefore, more attention needs to be given to grammatical features than to

phonological features.

It appears from observation and limited research that speakers of non-

standard dialects are (or may be) hindered in language development, in

progress in school, in learning to read, in job seeking, and in efforts to

achieve desired social status.

SUCCESS OF PROGRAMS IN TEACHING STANDARD DIALECT

The number of completed studies dealing with the success of specific

pedagogical approaches to dialect study and improvement of language skills

is quite limited. A few studies are in progress, but are not as yet com-

plete. The research which has been done on specific practices seems to in-

dicate the advantage of oral practice. Loban, for example, found that oral

drill was more effective than workbook drill (Loban, 1966, p. 56). The

NCTE has also asserted that "research supports the efforts of teachers who

approach usage change through oral means" (Ends and Issues, 1966, p. 9).

Generally, limited to one social class

2 Occurring in all social classes (i.e., cutting across social class lines)

-15--

I

A

Studies on tho Efficacy of Oral Work in Increasing General Language

Development -- Many studies have been done on general language devel-

opment and the role played by oral work. Only a few of the more

representative studies are discussed; others may be found in the

bibliography.

Marion Blank (1967), in a short range study, investigated the

cognitive gains in "deprived" children through individual teaching

of language for abstract thinking and found a rapid, marked gain

in IQ for the experimental group. John L. Carter (1967) looked at the

long range effects of a linguistic stimulation program upon Negro

educationally disadvantaged first-grade children and found "very" sig-

nificant gains by the experimental group in IQ, mental age, and language

age, but no difference in reading ability.

Project Head Start findings show that Project Head Start partici-

pants display greater oral language development than non-Head Start

participants (Daniel and Giles, 1966).

New York's Higher Horizons Program concentrated on the broaden-

ing of experiences for the culturally disadvantaged Child. There was

an improvement in the children's language, in their attitude toward

school, and a significant increase in reading scores (Green, 1965,

p. 732).

The Detroit Improvement Program is similar to the Higher Horizon's

program in that both seek to raise the aspiration level of the children

and both concentrate on oral skills. The auditory approach used in the

Detroit Improvement Program has led to consistent gains in all categories

of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills with the exception of the sub-test on

capitalization (Green, 1965, p. 732).

-16-

Studies on Treatment of Specific Aspects of Dialect -- Clark,

et. al (1967) tested the effectiveness of a training program to

improve speech and found that speech training is related to signifi-

cant Improvement in general speech effectiveness and in specific

linguistic features assumed to be characteristic of nonstandard aspects

of Negro dialect.

A study done by Ruth Golden in Detroit explored the oral language

problems of the "culturally different child." The program attempted

to modify nonstandard language through taped lessons. The study found

that positive changes in writing, speech, ,and self-esteem were possible.

The experimental group which used the tapes did almost twice as well

as the control group (significant at the .01 level).

San-Su C. Lin (1964) experimented for three years using pattern

practice to help well-motivated southern Negro college students with

standard English in speaking and writing. Her tentative conclusions in-

eluded the statement: " "pattern practice, used properly, can provide an

answer to the dialect problem." She says that the "student must become

keenly aware of the differences between standard and dialect usages."

The most success was observed in increasing the students' awareness of

their language problems and in giving them the learning techniques and

the self-confidence needed for further growth.

CURRENT PROGRAMS IN AUGMENTING DIALECT

The major emphasis in current programs to augment the dialect of non-

standard speakers is on beginning with the speaker's own language and build-

ing further competence from there. This is stressed in most of the programs

and by several linguists and educators including Loban (1966), Smiley (1965),

Allen (1967), and Crosby (1966).

-17-

The, essence of most of the current programs is summarized in a state-

ment made by J,N. Hook, University of Illinois, in speaking of the English

language program for the Seventies:

As English becomes more universal, so does the oral-aural method of teaching it. In United States class-rooms, children practice orally those patterns theyneed, experiment with word order, and gain a knowledgeof sentence structure. Usage is approached largelythrough oral practice, with attention given to the under-standing of dialects which differ according to thegeography, time, prestige, and etiquette of the situation. . . Classroom methods stress attention to the indivi-dual and wide but selective use of programmed materials(Hook, 1967).

Most of the programs follow the findings of research and stress the

oral aspect of language, learning. Oral games are described by Barrows

(1956), Slager (1962), and Bereiter and Engelmann (ERIC). The use of tapes

is quite common in experimental programs of teaching a standard dialect

(Golden, 1962; Lin, 1964; Loman, 1967.; and Smiley, 1965). Pattern practice,

already proven to be a promising approach, is currently being used by

several educators (Lin, 1964; Barrows, 3956; Anthony and Gross; and Smiley

1965). Some but not all of the techniques used in Teaching English as a

Second Language (TESOL) are also applicable to the teaching of standard

English to speakers of nonstandard dialects as has been pointed out by

McDavid (g. 1969).

Role playing is yet another oral approach to dialect learning (Lin,

1968). Other oral approaches to language learning are reading scripts for

short one-act plays, telephone conversations, language laboratories, and the

making of recordings (Plumer, 1968).

Some current programs being carried on by individuals include the use

of slang (Heiman, 1967) and enrichment through radio (ES 001 575).

Speech therapy has been used in the treatment of dialect-related speech

and hearing problems in California (ES 001 933) .

-18-

The approach to understanding and augmeuting dialect apparently need

not be limited solely to oral practices. Much is also being done in writ-

ing exercises and in the study of literature (Liu, 1967, and Steele, 1963).

There are other programs which are still in fhe developmental stage

but which hold promise upon completion. Irwin Feigenbaum has produced a

tested oral pattern practice and discrimination program for 'the Center foi

Applied Linguistics, but no report has been issued yet. The Los Angeles,

Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Washington schools are currently writing and

.testing materials oriented toward the problems of the nonstandard speaker

in learning standard speech.

CURRENT PROGRAMS ABOUT DIALECT

Other programs about dialect -- that is, information for students an...!

teachers -- have been developed by curriculum study centers to help teachers

and students learn about dialects. These include Gateway English materials

from Hunter College; the materials of the Oregon Curriculum Study Center

which include a test on the varieties of English, a unit on using the dic-

tionary, and a usage manual; the Indiana University English Curriculum Study

Series which includes several teaching units on language including one

specificially on dialect; the University of Georgia materials on usage. and

dialect; and the University of Minnesota Project English Center's language

materials, including two units which deal specifically with dialect.

-19-

WHAT THE TEACHER NEEDS TO KNOW AND DO

Statements on what teachers need to know about dialect have been

de, among ethers, by the College Entrance Examination Board (Freedom and

Discipline in English, 1965) and by the English Teacher Preparation Study

(NCTE) which provides a list of comprehensive guidelines for teacher pre-

paration (Viall, 1967). The Illinois State-wide Curriculum tenter for

the Preparation of Secondary School Teachers of English (ISCPET) has

stated that oinimal knowledge of language would include "a knowledge of

the present standards of educated usage; knowledge of the various levels

of usage and how those levels are determined." Good knowledge of language,

says ISCPET, would include: "A thorough knowledge of levels of usage;

some knowledge of dialectology, a realization of the cultural implications

tf both" (Classic Statements, 1968).

The necessity for the teacher to know about dialect has been stressed

by English educators and linguists for some time. If the findings of re-

search are to be utilized and if current programs which seem to be successful

are to be implemented on a larger scale, it is held essential that teachers

of English possess certain knowledges and skills. A syni.hesis of those

recommendations are as follows:

First, teachers must recognize and accept variety in language,

that is, they must be objective about dialects. This has been

emphasized by a multitude of educators and linguists including

Allen (1968), the NCTE (Nonstandard Dialect), and Loflin (1967).

Teachers must accept the fact that regional, social, and ethnic

dialects are normal and natural variations of language (Cassidy,

1968). Some sources about variety in dialect which are exten-

sively cited in the literature on dialects include Maimstrom's

-20-

Dialects U.S.A.; Shuy's Discovering American Dialects; Reed's

Dialects of American English; Loban's Problems in Oral English;

loos' The Five Clocks; two publications of the NCTE: Social

Dialects and Language Learning and Non-Standard Dialects; and

two articles by McDavid "American Social Dialects" and "Sense

and Nonsense About American Dialects."

Second, teachers must understand the facts about standard

English and relieve themselves of myths about "shall" and

"will" and other niceties. They should also be familiar with

accurate descriptions of nonstandard dialects. For example, it

may be of help to the teacher to understand that one of the

moat crucial differences of the Negro nonstandard speaker is

his use of unusual forms of the verb TO BE which convey distinc-

tions that are not efficiently possible in standard. Several

authoritative descriptions are available (Allen, 1968; Plumer,

1968; Lin, 1967; Loflin, 1967, and Stewart, 1964). There are

also several lists available which identify crucial and frequent

language differences. Appendix C contains lists of nonstandard

features compiled by Wolfram, Labov, Baratz, Shuy, Williamson,

Hernandez, McDavid, Loban, Garvey and McFarlane, as well as the

list from Nonstandard Dialect.

Third, teachers must be able to augment the nonstandard'

language patterns of their students. The crucial importance of

this has already been stressed in the "Introduction" of this

report. Evidence of the handicaps encountered by speakers of

nonstandard dialects and several approaches to augmenting non-

standard language patterns have already been discussed. One

-21-

further program designed to augment nonstandard language pat-

terns has been developed for speakers in New York City and is

described in Nonstandard Dialect. Portions of this program

are outlined in Appendix D. Other pedagogical suggestions are

to be found in Appendix D, including statements of needed

concepts, basic linguistic knowledge required, goals, and one

example of a specific teaching problem in nonstandard Negro

English.

TEACHER PREPARATION AND ACTUAL PRACTICES

It seem apparent that teacher preparation has not thus far adequately

provided the background needed for dialect study which was set forth in the

preceding section. A study conducted by the NCTE and reported in The

National Interest and the Teaching of English several years ago clearly

points out the deficiencies existing in the language preparation of both

elementary and secondary school teachers. This study concluded that their

preparation was "grievously deficient." A follow-up study conducted in

1964 found the situation still very inadequate.

This criticism of teacher preparation has been widely repealed. Per-

haps the best summary of this early criticism is found in the following

statement:

In considering the total problems of langua;c study, weface our own appalling ignorance of the subject. Fewpreparing for teaching in our college courses havestudied even traditional English grammar, much less thehistory of language, lexicography, semantics, Englishdialects, and similar related concerns. With only 40%of all English majors reasonably educated about language,with most elementary teachers possessing absolutely noformal work in language except what can be squeezed intoa general curriculum course, the profession has before itan enormous program of re-educatiOn (WCTE, 1963,pp. 9-10).

-22-a

A search of the literature substantiates this criticism of the

modern scene. With the many programs which have shown themselves to be

successful in augmentation of nonstandal'a dialects and with the extensive

study that has'been done of dialect, standard and nonstandard English,

one would expect that great headway in dialect study would be taking

place in the schools. Such has not been the case however:

Linguistic scholars have developed an extensive bodyof knowledge (information and concepts) about language,and a quantity of reliable information is availableto the mature student of language. Little of thisbody of knowledge or of its implications to the Englishlanguage has penetrated the secondary school curricu-lum. Information long known to linguists has hadlittle influence on attitudes and instructional tech-niques of teachers. . . Information about languageknown to psychologists, philosophers, and anthropolo-gists has had even less impact on the high schoolcurriculum (University of Minnesota Project EnglishCenter, 1968).

James Squire (1966, p. 615) found this to be the case in his study

of high school 8nglish programs. He comments that "We should like to re-

port instruction that reflects recent developments in language -- in

structural and generative grammar, in lexicography, dialects, or the

history of the language -- but awareness of a language program in this

sense, for most schools, seems still a thing of the future."

These studies reveal that English teachers do NOT possess the neces-

sary information about language, specifically about dialect and usage.

Womack came to the "final and disquieting conclusion that English usage is

still in chaos" (Womack, 1959). He found that the majority of the teachers

still reject most usages that published information tends to support as

acceptable. The study also revealed that few teachers had taken course

work in linguistic science or were familiar with basic works in linguistics.

Pooley found that there was no agreement among English teachers about

-23-

English usage despite a thirty-year backlog of linguistic evidence on the

topic (Pooley, 1967, p. 743). Similar findings were reported in a study

of "The Language Attitudes and Beliefs of Minnesota Elementary and High.

School Teachers of English" which gives evidence that "a large number o4,:

Minnesota elementary and secondary teachers do not have informed attitudes

and beliefs about the English language. . . both elementary and secondary

teachers still have much to learn about the English language and language

study (Hess, 1968).

San-Su C. Lin (1967) in "Disadvantaged Student or Disadvantaged

Teacher?" points out that while some students may not have an adequate

understanding and control of standard English, too many of their teachers

know very little about (much less accept) nonstandard English. She

stresses that both are in a sense "disadvantaged."

SUMMARY

Linguistic scholarship has begun to particularize the obvious fact that

all people speak dialects and that each dialect has regular observable fea-

tures. The related observable fact that some dialects are preferred in so-

cial and occupational contexts is being studied, though it is not at this

time fully understood how and to what degree speakers of standard English

respond to utterances of nonstandard speakers.

The mandate to the schools to provide students with the means of social

mobility, including control of standard English, is well established and

widely accepted despite the current protestations of some persons that,

since all dialects are equally respectable, the school has no business

teaching standard English to speakers of nonstandard.

On the other hand, though schools accept the task of teaching standard

English, the sensitivities among minority groups demand a new and humane

basis for the teacher's actions: namely the understanding that standard

English is taught not because it is "correct," but because it is a socially,

educationally, and vocationally useful dialect. This requirement forces re-

orientation of the teacher from an absolutist to a relativistic attitude

toward language, an orientation which may be contrary to deeply held views

in the value system of most teachers.

It is widely held, though as yet unproven, that this relativistic view

of language will arise as teachers and students gain more knowledge about

the nature of dialects, particularly nonstandard dialects, in social and

historical perspective. It has been lepeatedly observed that teachers are

singularly uninformed about the nature of dialects (and language in general),

and much needs to be done about informing teachers.'

1 UMREL's Inservice Training Package, "Backgrounds in Language" will be

distributed on sale and rental basis to local school districts be-

ginning June 1970 by the National CounCil of Teachers of English,

Champaign, Illinois 61820.

-25--

Knowing about dialects is only parr of the answer, however; what the

teacher is to do in the classroom is even more pressing as a problem. The

supply of needed learning technologies for augmenting (adding to) the stu-

ent's repertoire of linguistic choices, is, at present, weak but developing.

Current practices in usage correction/ augmentation appear to be largely

frui less. Research over a half century points to the lack of bearing of

formal

another

study of grammar on the problem. Written blank-filling usage exercises,

common method, appear rather fruitless, particularly for the non-

speaker,though little direct research has been done on the effective-standard

ness of th

Linguis

technique.

ts, in addition to characterizing the speech of ethnic and

social dialect

based on oral-a

groups, have begun to develop dialect training systems, largely

ural techniques, spawned by methods of teaching English to

speakerS of other language (TESOL). Experimental work in altering nonstandard,

speech through such oral-aural means has been promising but not conclusive,

and teachers, espec ally teachers of ghetto children, do not know what, if

anything, they should do.

-26-

CONCLUSIONS

Usage is obviously an individual problem; no two speakers vary from

standard English in precisely the same way or to the same degree. Learning

standard English should be, accordingly, conducted on an individual basis.

While it can be argued that individual circumstances (aspirations, job op:-

portunities, geographical situation) also create variety in the need for

individuals to control standard English, the egalitarian concept of oppor-

tunity demands that students have opportunity to learn to control standard

English even though their precise future need is not known.

The Upper Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory will seek ways to

prepare teachers to make more effective, individualized use of materials

that are now available and to be ready for new systems of augmenting the

speech of nonstandard speakers. Through appropriate means, the Laboratory

will produce skills in teachers which will enable them (1) to recognize

and transcribe nonstandard utterances accurately, (2) to characterize those

differences sensitively and knowledgeably, (3) to create an individual

dialect/usage curriculum for each student, (4) and to organize (i.e. "bank")

present materials so that they might be used efficiently in individualized

programs of instruction.

Components of knowledge will be introduced into the training program

to facilitate understanding of the nature of dialect (and to some degree,

language in general), to create a capacity to choose dialect curriculum

materials intelligently, and to prepare teachers to continue to learn about

dialect through reading, listening, and discussing teaching practices.

s.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Harold B. Expanding Frontiers in Dialect Study - Speech deliveredat the Annual convention of the NCTE (Honolulu, November 1967).ERIC ED 021 837.*

Allen, Harold B. "What English Teachers Should Know About Their Language."Position paper from Language Education for the Disadvantaged. NDEAReport #3, June, 1968.

**Anthony, Ann and Lois M. Grose. "Pattern Practice for Students Using aNon-standard Dialect." Pittsburgh Public Schools, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, September, 1967. In Research in Progress: SocialDialects of English, Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart, Center for AppliedLinguistics, 1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

Ashley, Annabel. "Using Dialects U.S.A. in High School Classes." EnglishJournal LIII, 4, April, 1964, pp. 256-245.

Ausubel, D.P. "How Reversible are the Cognitive and Motivational Effectsof Cultural Deprivation? Implications for Teaching the CulturallyDeprived Child." Urban Education, 1964, pp. 1, 16-38.

Bailey, B. "Linguistics: Nonstandard Language Patterns." NCTE paper.

Bailey, B.L. "Some Aspects of Linguistics on Language Teaching in Dis-advantaged Communities." Elementary English, 45, 1968, pp. 570-579.

Baratz, Joan C. "Language and Cognitive Assessment of Negro Children:Assumptions and Research Needs," Center for Applied Linguistics,American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1968. ERIC ED022 157.

allWaya.

"Teaching :leading in an Urban Negro School System." InTeaching. Black Children To Read, Baratz, and Shuy (Eds.),.Center forApplied Linguistics, 1969.

* This number indicates that the article or material is a part of theEducational Resources Information Center (ERIC), c/o National CashRegister Company, 4936 Fairmont Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland. The ma-terials may be viewed on "microfiche" (photo-negative) cards using amicrofiche reader. These are commonly available at universities andcolleges, state departments of education, and large school systems.The monthly and annual catalogs of ERIC contain summaries of the arti-cles and indicate whether they are available in hard-cover (HC) versionsfrom ERIC or in printed form through another source.

** Unfortunately, the Center' for Applied. Linguistics reports of researchin progress give only very sketchy descriptions of studies; the readermust usually inquire on the investigator to learn more.

Baratz, Joan and E.A. Povich. "Grammatical Constructions in the Language

of the Negro Pre-school Child." ASHA Paper, 1967.

Baratz, Joan and Roger W. Shuy. (Eds.) TeaChing Black Children To Read.

Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969.

Barritt, Loren S., Mervyn I. Semmel, Paul Weener. "Immediate Memory Span

of Children from 'Advantaged' and 'Disadvantaged' Backgrounds."

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, September, 1967. In Research in

Progress: Social Dialects of English. Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart,

Center for Applied Linguistics, 1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

Barrows, Marjorie Wescott. Good English Through Practice. Henry Holt and

Company, New York, 1956.

Basic Issues in the Teaching of English. NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1959.

ERIC ED 016 640.

Bateman, Donald R. and Frank J. Zidonis. "The Effect of a Study of

Transformational Grammar on the Writing of Ninth and Tenth Graders."

NCTE Research Report #6, NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1966.

Bereiter, Carl. "An Academically-oriented Pre-school for Disadvantaged

Children: Results from the Initial Experimental Group." University

of Illinois, Urbana, September, 1967. In Research in Progs:Social Dialects of English, Report 13, Wm. A. Stewart, Center for

Applied Linguistics, 1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

Bereiter, Carl and Siegfried Engelmann. "Language Learning Activities for

the Disadvantaged Child."' ERIC ED 020 002.

.Blank, Marion. "Cognitive Gains in 'Deprived' Children Throuch Individual

Teaching of Language for. Abstract Thinking." 1967. ERIC ED 019 346.

Blount, Nathan S. "Summary of Investigations Relating to the English Lan-

guage Arts in Secondary Education :. 1965." English Journal, 55:5, May,

1966, pp. 581-608.

"Summary of Investigations Relating to the English Lan-.

guage Arts in Secondary Education: 1966." English Journal, 56:5, May,

1967, pp. 681-696.

"Summary of Investigations Relating to the English Lan-.

guage Arts in Secondary Education: 1967." English Journal, 57:5, May,

1968, pp. 710-724.

Bostain, James C. "The Dream World of English Grammar." NEA Journal,

September, 1966, p. 20.

Broz, James J., Jr. "Trends and Implications of Current Research in Dialect-

ology." ERIC ED 010 690.

Broz, James J., jr., and Alfred S. Hayes. Linguistics and Reading.: A

Selective Annotated Bibliography for Teachers of Reading. Center for

Applied Linguistics, 1966.

Carroll, Dwight. "A Study of High School Textbook Treatment of CertainItems in Grammar and Usage." University of Nebraska Teachers College,

Umpublfshed Ph.D. Dissertation, 1963.

Carroll, John B. The Study of Language, A Survey of Linguistics and RelatedDisciplines in America. 1953. ERIC ED 015 276.

Carter, John L. "The Long Range Effects of a Language Stimulation Program

Upon Negro Educationally Disadvantaged First Grade Children." Houston

University, Texas, May, 1967. ERIC ED 013 276.

Cassidy, Frederic G. "American Regionalism in the Classroom." English

Journal, 57:3, harch, 1968, pp. 375-379.

Cazden, Courtney B. "Subcultural Differences in Child Language: An

Interdisciplinary Review." Harvard R&D Center on Educational Differ-

ences, 1966. Reprinted from Merrill-Palmer quarterly of Behaviorand Development, 22:3, 1966, pp. 185-219. ERIC ED 011 325.

Cherry, Estelle, "Children's Comprehension of Teacher and Peer Speech."

Child Development, 36, 1965, pp. 467-480.

Clark, Dennis, Abraham Wolf, Murray Halfond, Henry Goehl, Donald Ecroyd,

(William Labov). "The Dialect Remediation Project of Temple University."

Temple University, Philadelphia, 1967. In Research In Progress:Social Dialects of English, Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart, Center for

Applied Linguistics, 1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

"Classic Star,ement of Teacher Preparation in English." English Journal,

57:4, April, 1968, pp. 537-550.

Crisp, Raymond D. Ed. "Current Research in English Teacher Preparation: A

First Report." Illinois State-Wde Curriculvm Study Center, Urbana,

January, 1968. ERIC ED 016 661

Crosby, Muriel. "English: New Dimensions and New Demands." Elementary,

English, XLIII, April, 1966, pp. 327-332.

. "Presidential Address: Of the Times and the Language."English Journal, 65:2, February 1967, pp. 199-207.

"Current Social Dialect Research at American Higher InStitutions." Report

#2, Center for Applied Linguistics, 1966. ERIC ED 010 876.

DanieL, Artie A. and Douglas E. Giles. "A Comparison of the Oral Language

Development of Head Start Pupils with Non-Head Start Pupils." August,

1966. ERIC ED 010 848.

Davis, A.L. Dialect Research and the Needs of the Schools. NCTE, Champaign,Illinois, May, 1968. ERIC ED 022 153.

Davis, Allison. "Teaching Language and Reading to Disadvantaged NegroChildren." In Dimensions of Dialect, Evertts, Ed., NCTE, Champaign,Illinois, 1967.

Davis, A.L. and R.I. McDavid, Jr. "A description of the Chicago SpeechSurvey: Communication Barriers to the Culturally Deprived." Ithaca,New York, Cornell University. Project Literacy Reports, No. 2,1964, pp. 23-25.

Denby, Robert B. "NCTE/ERIC Report: Linguistics Instruction in SecondarySchool Classrooms." English Journal, 57:9, December 1968, pp. 1352-1358.

Deutsch, M. "The Disadvantaged Child and the Learning Process." In Educa-tion In Depressed Areas, A.H. Passow (Ed.), New York: TeachersCollege, Columbia University, 1963, pp. 163-179.

Deutsch, M. and B. Brown. "Social Influences in Negro-White IntelligenceDifferences." J. Soc. Issues, 1964, 20, pp. 24-35.

Dillard, J.L. "Negro Children's Dialect in the Inner City." The FloridazapliAa Ta me Reporter, 2, 1967.

Ends and Issues: 1965-1966. NCTE Commission on the English Curriculum,Alexander "Etasier (Ed.). NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1966.

"English Teacher Preparation Study: Guidelines for the Preparation ofTeachers of English." English Journal, 57:4, April 1968, pp. 528-536.

"Enrichment Through Radio: An Experimental Project to Alleviate a LanguageBarrier." Washington D.C., Board of Education. ERIC ES 001 575.

Entwisle, Doris R. (a). "Develdpmental Sociolinguistics: Inner CityChildren." The Johns Hopkins University. Project No. 6-1610, May,1967. ERIC EC 011 611.

. (b) . '"Subcultaral Differences in Children's LanguageDevelopment." The Johns Hopkins University, Project No. 6-1610,May, 1967. ERIC ED 011 612.

(c). "Word Associations of Disadvantaged Children."Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, September, 1967. In Research

In Progress: Social Dialects of English, Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart,Center for Applied Linguistics, 1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

Entwisle, Doris R. and Ellen Greenberger. "Differences in the Language ofNegro and White Grade-School Children, 1,2." The Johns HopkinsUniversity, Project No. 6150-13-13, May, 1968. ERIC ED 019 676.

a

Ervin-Tripp, Susan. "Comparative Language Development and Socialization."

University of California, Berkeley, September, 1967. In Research in

Progress: Social Dialects of English. Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart,

Center for Applied Linguistics, 1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

Evertts, Eidonna L. (Ed.) Dimensions of Dialect. NCTE, Champaign, Illinois,

1967.

Fasold, Ralph W. "Orthography in Reading Materials for Black English

Speaking Children." In Teaching. Black Children'io Read, Baratz and

6%11! (Ed.), Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969, pp. 68-91.

Fennessey, James. "An Exploratory Study of Non-English Speaking Homes and

Academic Performance." Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, May, 1967.

(ED 011 613).

Figurel, J. Allen. "Limitations in the Vocabulary of Disadvantaged Children:

A Cause of Poor Reading." Improvement of Reading Through Classroom

Practice. Proceedings of the Annual Convention, International Reading

Association, Vol. No.9, 1964.

Freedom and Discipline in English. Report of the Commission on English.

College Entrance Examination Board, New York, 1965.

Fries, C.C. American English Grammar. New York, Appleton-Century, 1940.

Gage, N.L. (Ed.). Hankbook of Research on Teaching. American Educational

Research Association, Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, 1963.

Garvey, Catherine and Paul T. McFarlane. "A preliminary Study of Standard

English Speech Patterns in the Baltimore City Public Schools." The

Johns Hopkins University, Report No. 16, March, 1968.

Golden, Ruth I. "Slow Learners -- Instructional Tapes and Insights."

English Journal, LI, September, 1962, pp. 418-421, 442.

Goodman, Kenneth S. "Dialect Bdrriers to Reading Comprehension." In-

Teaching Black Children To Read, Baratz and Shuy (Ed.), Center for

Applied Linguistics, 1969, and in Dimensions of Dialect, Evertts

(Ed.), pp. 39-46.

Gordon, C. Wayne, Audrey J. Schwartz, Robert Wenkert, and David Nasatir.

"Educational Achievement and Aspirations of Mexican-American Youth in

a Metropolitan Context." Center for the '..udy of Evaluation of

Instructional Programs, University of California at Los Angeles,

October, 1968.

Gott, Evelyn. "Teaching Regional Dialects in Junior High School." English

Journal, LIII, No. 5, May, 1964, pp. 342-'344, 363.

Green, Wm. D. "Language and the Culturally Different." English Journal,

54:8, November, 1965, pp. 724-733, 740.

Groman, Alfred H. "A History of the Preparation of Teachers of English."English Journal, 57-4, April, 1968, pp. 484-527.

Gropper, George L., Jerry G. Short, Audrey Holland, Jacqueline Liebergott."Development of a Program to Teach Standard American English toSpeakers of Non-standard Dialects." American Institutes for Research,Pittsbuigh, September, 1967. In Research in Progress: Social Dialectsof English, Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart, Centei. for Applied Linguistics,

1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

Gumperz, John J. "The Social Group as a Primary Unit of Analysis in DialectStudy." Social Dialects and Language Learning, NCTE, Champaign,Illinois, 1964, pp. 127-129.

Harris, Chester W. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Third

Edition, Macmillan Co., New York, 1960.

Hayes, Alfred A. and Joy Varley. "Language Research in Progress." Report

#2, Center for Applied Linguistics. ERIC ED 018 797.

Heiman, Ernest. "The Use of Slang in Teaching Linguistics." English Journal,56:2, February, 1967, pp, 249-252.

Hernandez, Luis F. "Teaching English to the Culturally DisadvantagedMexican-American Student." English Journal, 57:1, January, 1968,pp. 87-92.

Hess, Karen Matison, "The Language Attitudes and Beliefs of MinnesotaElementary and High School Teachers of English." University ofMinnesota, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, 1968.

Higgins, Louise V. "Approaching Usage in the Classroom." English Journal,

XLIX:3, March, 1960, pp. 181-186.

Hook, J. N. (a). "English Language Programs for the Seventies." MinnesotaCouncil of Teachers of English, January, 1967. ERIC ED 015 186.

(b). "The State of Teacher Preparation Programs in English."Illinois State-wide Curriculum Study Center, Urbana, 1967. ERIC

ED 016 660.

Hubbard, James L. and Lenore T. Zarate. "Final Report on Head StartEvaluation and Research -- 1966-1967." Texas University, Austin,

August, 1967. ERIC ED 019 120.

Inventory of Projects and Activities in Reading and English (2). Center for

Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1967.

Jacobs, Paul H. "Criteria for Evaluating High School English Programs."English Journal, 57:9, December, 1968, pp. 1275-1296.

Jenkinson, Edward B. What Is Lang1uage, and Other Teaching Units For Grades

Seven Through Twelve. Indiana University English Curriculum' StudySeries, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1967. ERIC ED 018 434.

John, Vera P. "The Intellectual Development; of Slum Children." AmericanJournal.of Orthopsychiatry, 33, October, 1963, pp. 813-822.

John, Vera P. and L. S. Goldstein. "The Social Context of Language Acquisi-

tion." MAE Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1964, 10, pp. 265-275.

Joos, Martin. The Five Clocks: A Linguistic Excursion into the Five Styles

of English Usage. Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1967.

Kaplan, Robert B. "On a Note of Protest (In a Minor Key): Bidialectism vs.

Bidialectism." College English, 30:5, February, 1969, pp. 386-389.

Keislar, Evan R., Carolyn Stern, Avima Lombard Geraldine Trevor, TobieGonick, and Willa Gupta. "Instruction of Socioeconomically HandicappedPre-School Children in the Use of Language to Increase Academic Apti-tude." Dept. of Education, University of California at Los Angeles,September, 1967. In Research in Progress: Social Dialects of English,Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart, Center for Applied Linguistics, 1967.

Keller, Suzanne. "The Social World of the Urban Slum Child: Some Early

Findings." American Journaj of Orthopsychiatry, 33, 1963, pp. 823-831.

Kenyon, John S. "Cultural Levels and Functional Varieties." Essays On

Language and Usage, Leonard F.' Dean and Kenneth G. Wilson (Eds.),

New York, Oxford University Press, 1963, pp. 279-281.

Kitzhaber, Albert R. (a). "A Mature Attitude Toward Usage. Language

Curriculum VI., Student Version." Oregon University, Eugene. ERIC

ED 015 919.

(b). Test: Varieties of English. Language Curricu-

lum I.., Oregon University, Eugene. ERIC ED 015 928.

. (c). "Usage Manual" -- student version.

of Oregon, Eugene, 1966. ERIC ED 010 149.

. (d). "Usage Manual" -- teacher version.

of Oregon, Eugene, 1966. ERIC ED 010 630.

University

University

(e). "Varieties of English, Using the Dictionary."

Student version. University of Oregon, Eugene, 1966. ERIC ED 010 049.

. (f). "Varieties of English, Using the Dictionary."

Teacher version. University of Oregon, Eugene, 1966. ERIC ED 010 150.

Knowlton, Clark S. "Spanish-American Schools in the 1960's." 1966. ERIC

ED 012 194.

3L/

Kockman, Thomas. "The Lexicon of American Negro Slang." Department of

American English and Linguistics, Illinois Teachers College, Chicago,September, 1967. In Research in Progress: Social Dialects of English,

Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart, Center for Applied Linguistics, 1967. ERIC

EC 012 906.

. "'Rapping' in the Black Ghetto." Trans-Action, February, 1969.

Kraft, Marguerite. "Where Do I Go From Here?" A Handbook for Continuing

Language Study in the Field, 1966. ERIC ED 012 925.

Kopp, James L. "I Sees 'em as I calls 'em -- Hue Discrimination and Hue

Naming Across Cultures." Michigan University, Ann Arbor, September,

1967. ERIC ED 017 900.

Labov, William. (a). "The Linguistic Variable as a Structural Unit." 1966.

ERIC ED 101 871.

. (b). "The Non-Standard Vernacular of the Negro Community:

Some Practical Suggestions." Position paper from Language Education forthe Disadvantaged, NDEA Report #3, June 10, 1968, pp. 4-6. ERIC ED

016 947.

. (c). "A Preliminary Study of the Structure of English Usedby Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City." Columbia Univer-

sity, New York, 1965. ERIC ED 003 819.

. (d). The Social Stratification of English New York City.

Urban Language Series, Roger Shuy (Ed.), Center for Applied Linguistics,

1966. ERIC ED 012 927.

. (e). "Some Sources of Reading Problems for Negro Speakers

of Non-standard English." March, 1966. Teaching Black Children to Read.

Baratz and Shuy (Ed.), 1969, Center for Applied Linguistics. ERIC ED

010 688.

(f). "Some Suggestions for Teaching Standard English to

Speakers of Non-standard Dialects." Columbia University, New York,

July, 1967. ERIC ED 016 948.

or

(g). "Stages in the AcquLsition of Standard English."Social Dialects and Language Learning, R. W. Shuy (Ed.), NCTE, Champaign,Illinois, 1965.

. (h). "A Study of the Structure of English Used by Negroand Puerto Rican Speakers of New York City." Columbia University, New

York, September, 1967. In Research in Progress: Social Dialects ofEnglish, Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart, Center for Applied Linguistics,1967. ERIC ED 021 906.

35

Labov, William. (1). "Systematic Relations of Standard and Non-standard

Rules in the Grammars of Negro Speakers." Columbia University, New

York, May, 1967. ERIC ED 016 946.

Lane, Harlan, and others. "The perception of General American English by

Speakers of Southern Dialects." Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Center

for Research in Language and Behavior, 1967. ERIC ED 016 974.

Language Programs for the Disadvantaged. Report of the NCTE Task Force on

Teaching English to the Disadvantaged. Richard Corbjm and Muriel

Crosby, Co-chairmen. NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1965.

Lesser, G. S., G. Fifer, and D. H. Clark. "Mental Abilities of Children in

Different Social and Cultural Groups." Mon6graph Social Research Child

Development, 30:4, Serial No. 102, 1965.

Levin, Miriam K. "A Survey of Linguistic Units in the High Schools."

Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey. Report No. TDR-66-5.

College Entrance Examination Board, December, 1966. ERIC ED 016 639.

Liberman, A. M., F. S. Cooper, D. P. Shankweiler, and M. Studdert-Kennedy.

"Perceptipn of the Speech Code." Psychological Review, 74:6, November,

1967, pp. 431-461.

Linguistic Bibliography for the Teacher of English, Revised Edition. Minnesota

Council of Teachers of English, Duluth, 1968. ERIC ED 019 670.

Lin, San-Su C. "Disadvantaged Student? or Disadvantaged Teacher?"

Journal, 56:5, May, 1967, pp. 751-756.

. "Pattern Practice in a Freshman English Program." Social

Dialects and Language Learning, Roger Shuy (Ed.), NCTE, Champaign,

Illinois, 1964, pp. 57-62.

. "Pattern Practice." The Teaching of Standard Enali4h to

Students With A Non-standard Dialect, New York, Bureau of Publications,

Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965.

Llody, Donald. "Sub-Cultural Patterns Which Affect Language and Reading

Development." LnLuage, Linguistics, and School Programs, Weiss (Ed.),

NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1963, pp. 37-54.

Loban, W. D. "The Language of Elementary School Children." Champaign,

Illinois, 1963.

. Problems In Oral English. Research Report 4 #5, NCTE Committee

on Research, Champaign, Illinois, NCTE, 1966.

Loflin, Marvin D. "A Note on the Deep Structure of Non-standard English in

Washington, D.C." Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.,

1966. ERIC ED 010 875.

Loflin, W. D. "A Teaching Problet in Non-standard Negro English."English Journal, 56:9 December, 1967, pp. 1312-1314

Loman, Bengt. Conversations in a Negro American Dialect. Center forApplied Linguisitcs, 1967. ERIC ED 013 455.

Malmstrom, Jean. Dialects U.S.A., NCTE, 1966. (out of print)

"Linguistic Atlas Findings Versus Textbook Pronuncementson Current American Usage." English Journal, 48, 1957, pp. 191 -198.

Marckwardt, Albert H. (Ed.). Language and Lan22.agt' Learning. DartmouthSeminrr Papers. NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1968.

McDavid, Raven E., Jr. (a). "American Social Dialects." College English,26, January, 1965, pp. 254-260.

. (b). "A Checklist of Sigaificant Features for Discrim-inating Social Dialects." Dimensions of Dialect, Evertts, (Ed.),NCTE, 1967, pp. 7-10.

(c). William M. Austin, Alva L. Davis. "Communi-cation Barriers for the Culturally Deprived." University of Chicagoand Illinois Institute of Technology, November, 1966.

. (d). "Dialectology and the Teaching of Reading."Teaching Black Children to Read, Baratz and Shuy (Eds.), Center forApplied Linguistics, 1969, pp. 1-13.

. (e). '(H). An Examination of the Attitudes of theNCTE Toward Language. Research Report #4, NCTE, Champaign, Illinois,1965.

. (f). "Sense and Nonsense About American Dialects."PMLA, May, 1966, pp. 7-17.

(g). "Social Dialects and Professional Responsibility."College English, 3C:5, February, 1969, pp. 381-385.

(h). Varations in Standard American English - NCTE.May, 1968. ERIC ED 022 154. Article in On the Dialects of Children.

Meckel, Henry C. "Research on Teaching Composition and Literature."Handbook of Research on Teaching, N. L. Gage, (Ed.), American Educa-tional Research Association, Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, 1963.

Minnesota Chippewa Indians. A Handbook for Teachers by Dean A. Crawford,David Peterson, and Virgil Wurr. Upper Midwest Regional EducationalLaboratory, 1967. ERIC ED 017 383.

-39

Monsees, Edna K. and Carol Berman. Speech and Language Screening in aSummer Headstart Program. May, 1968. ERIC ED 019 672.

Moulton, William G. A Linguistic Guide to Language Learning. Modern LanguageAssociation of America, 1966.

The National Interest and the Continuina Education of Teachers of English.NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1964.

The National Interest and the Teaching of English. NCTE, Champaign,Illinois, 1960.

Pride, J. B. Notes on Current Developments in the Study of Language inCulture and Society. Committee on Research and Development in ModernLanguages. ERIC ED 021 502.

Putman, G. N. and Edna M. O'Hern. "The Status Significance of an IsolatedUrban Dialect." Language Disseration, No. 53, Language, 31:4, 1960.Whole of Part 2.

Read, Allen. "The Labeling of National and Regional Variations in PopularDictionaries." 'Indiana University, Bloomington, October, 1960. ERICED 003 901.

Reed, Carroll. Dialects of American English, World Publishing Co., 1967.

Rice, Frank and Allene Guss. Information Sources in Linguistics. A biblio-graphical handbook. Center for Applied Linguistics, 1965.

Rohwer, William D. "Social- Class Differences in the Role of LinguisticStructures in Paired-Associate Learning." Institute of Human Learning,University of California, Berkeley, September, 1967. In Research inProgress: Social Dialects of English, Report #3, Wm. A. Stewart,Center for Applied Linguistics, 1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

St. John, Nancy Hoty, and Nancy Smith. "Annotated Bibliography on SchoolRacial Mix and the Self Concept, Aspirations, Academic Achievement, andInter-racial Attitudes and Behaviors of Negro Children." Harvard R&DCenter on Educational Differences, Harvard University, Cambridge, 1967.

Schneider, Gilbert D. "'English, Pidgin-English, Preliminary Glossary."Ohio University, Athens, Center for International Studies, October1965 ERIC ED 011 113.

Schroth, Evelyn. "Some Usage Forms Die Hard--Thanks to College EntranceExams." English Journal, 56:1, January, 1967, pp. 97-99.

Searles, John R. 'and Robert G. Carlson. !'English." Encyclopedia of Educa-tional Research, Harris (Ed.), Third Edition, Macmillan Co., New York,1960.

Shafer, RobertRobert E. "Interpreting the Language Arts. Bibliography." Educa-tional Leadership., 19:300-:301, February, 1962.

Shuy, Roger W. (a). "Detroit Dialect Study." Michigan State University,East Lansing, September, 1967. In Research in Progress: SocialDialect'of English, Report #3, William Stewart, Center for AppliedLinguistics, 1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

(b). Detroit peech: Careless, Awkward, and Inconsistent,or Systematic, Graceful, and Re:LIiar? NCTE, Champaign, Illinois,Commission on the English Language, May, 1968. ERIC'ED 022 155.

. (c). Discoverin& American Dialects. NCTE, Champaign,Illinois, 1967. ERIC ED 017 507.

. (d). et al. "Field Techniques in an Urban Language Study."Urban Language Series, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C.,1968. ERIC ED 022 156.

. (e). "A Linguistic Background for Developing BeginningReading Materials for Black Children." Teaching Black Children to Read,Baratz and Shuy.(Ed.), Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969, pp. 117-137.

. (f). A Stu of Social Dialects in Detroit, Final Reoort.Michigan State University, East Lansing, April, 1968. ERIC ED 022 187.

Shuy, Roger, W. Wolfram, and W. Riley. "Linguistic Correlates of SpeechStratification." Detroit Speech. Cooperative Research Project 6,1347, U.S. Office of Education, 1967.

'Sizemore, Mamie. "Closing the Gap in Indian Education." Arizona StateDepartment of Public Instruction, Phoenix, January, 1967. ERIC ED011 475.

Slager, William R. "Effecting Dialect Change Through Oral Drill." En lt.ELJournal, 56:8, November, 1967, pp. 1166-1176.

Sledd, James. "On Not Teaching English Usage." English Journal, 54:8,November, 1965, pp. 698-703.

Smiley, Marjorie B. (a). "Gateway English: Teaching English to Disadvan-taged Students." killish Journal, 54:4, April, 1965, pp. 265 274.

. (b). "Development of Reading and English LanguageMaterials for Grades 7-9 in Depressed Urban Are City University ofNew York, Hunter College, October, 1965. ERIC ED 003 081.

Social Dialects and Language Learning.. A Report on a Conference Sponsoredby Illinois Institute of Technology and the NCTE. Roger W. Shuy (Ed.),Cooperative Research Project No. E-10-148, NCTE, Champaign, Illinois,1964.

-39-

"Speech Improvement Program." Philadelphia Schools. Marion L. Steet, Assis-tant Director, U.S.O.E. Support, 1966-67. Inventory of Projects andActivities in Reading and English. (2); Center for Applied Linguistics,Washington, D.C., 1967.

Spencer, Robert F. (Ed.). Many. Sided Language. Graduate School ResearchCenter, University of Minnesota, 1964.

Squire, James. "The National Study of'High School English Programs." CollegeEnglish, 27:8, May, 1966, pp. 613-619.

"Standard English Through Speech Therapy Methodology." Emery Unified SchoolDistrict, Emeryville, California, (no date). ERIC ED 001 993.

Steele, Sister Mary Christopher, R.S.M. "My Own, My Native Tongue." English

Journal, LII:2, February, 1963, p. 112.

Stern, Carolyn. "Headstart Research and Evaluation Office, University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles Annual Report, November, 1967, Section II.ERIC ED 021 613.

Stewart, William A. (Ed.) (a). Nonstandard Speech and the Teaching ofEnglish. Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1964.

. (b). "On the Use of Negro Dialect in theTeaching of Reading." Teaching_ Black Children to Read, Baratz andShuy (Eds.), Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1969,pp. 156-219.

. (c). Research in Progress: Social Dialects ofEnglish. Report No. 3, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington,D.C., 1967. ERIC ED 012 906.

. (d). "Sociolinguistic Factors in the Historyof American Negro Dialects." The Florida FL Reporter, 5:2, Spring, 1967.

. (e): "Urban Negro Speech: SociolinguisticFactors Affecting English Teaching." Social Dialects and LanguageLearns, Roger Shuy (Ed.), NCTE, Champaing, Illinois, 1964.

Strom, Ingried M. "Summary of Investigations Relating to the EnglishLanguage Arts in Secondary Education--1963-1964." English Journal,54:3, March, 1965, pp. 238-255.

Sub-Cultural Patterns Which Affect Lang11Ne and Reading Development. NCTEChampaign, Illinois, 1963. ERIC ED 020 920.

Templin, Mildred C. "Certain Language Skills in Children; Their Developmentand interrelationships." Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,

1957.

Thomas D. B. "Oral Language, Sentence Structure, and Vocabulary of Kinder-garten Children Living in Low Socio-economica Urban Areas." Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1962.

ThompsOn, Hildegard. "Teaching English to Indian Children." Dimensions ofDialect, Evertts (Ed.), NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1967.

University of Minnesota Project English Center -- Abstracts --1967.

University of Minnesota Project English Center -- Units -- 1967.

Viall, William P. "English Teacher Preparation Study, Guidelines for thePreparation of Teachers of English, Final Report." Western MichiganUniversity, Kalamazoo, April, 1967. ERIC ED 014 478.

Weener, Paul David. "The Influence of Dialect Differences on the ImmediateRecall of Verbal Messages." Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Center forResearching Language and Behavior, September, 1967. ERIC ED 017 901.

Weiss, Bernard J., Director. Language, Linguistics and School Programs.Proceedings of the Spring Institutes. NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1963.

White, Robert H. "The Effects of Structural Linguistics on Improving EnglishCompositions Compared to that of Prescriptive Grammar or the Absenceof Grammar Instruction." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Arizona, 1964.

Williamson, Juanita V. "The Speech of Negro High School Students in Memphis,Tennessee." English Department, LeMoyne College, Memphis, September,1967. In Research in Progress: Social Dialects of English, Report #3,Wm. A. Stewart, Center for Applied Lingusitics, Washington, D. C., 1967.ERIC ED 019 906. Also in ERIC ED 021 210 -- final report, June, 1968.

Wisconsin Council of Teachers of English Special Bulletin No. 8. BasicConsiderations for a New English Program, October, 1963.

Wolfram, Walter A. "Sociolinguicstic Implications for Educational Sequencing."(Pre-publication manuscript). Center for Applied Linguistics, February,1969.

Wolfram, Walter A. and Ralph Fasold. "Toward Reading Materials For Speakersof Black English: Three Linguistically Appropriate Passages." Teaching.

Black Children to Read, Baratz and Shuy (Eds.), Center for AppliedLinguistics, Washington, D.C., 1969, pp. 186-190.

Womack, Thurston. "Teacher Attitudes Toward Current Usage." English Jour-nal, 48: 1959, pp. 186-190.

Wood;, Gordon R. "Sub-Regional Speech Variations in Vocabulary, Grammar, andPronunciation." Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois,1967. ERIC ED 019 263.

Zidonis, Frank J. "Generative Grammar: A R

Journal, 54, May, 1965, pp. 405-409.

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY

DIALECT: A dialect is a variety of language which consists of characteristiclexical, phonological, and grammatical patterns shared by a groupof speakers. (See functional variety of usage, prestige dialect,regional dialect, social dialect) .

FUNCTIONAL VARIETY OF USAGE: Linguistic observation reveals that speakers ofEnglish, both standard and nonstandard dialect speakers, move fromone variety of language to another according to the context of thespeech situation and the speaker's purpose. Five such varieties

have been identified for standard English. These are (ranged from

most formal to least formal): literary, formal, informal, casual,

and intimate. (For an informative 'discussion of this concept see

The Five Clocks by Joos.)

GRAMMAR: Grammar is (1) the scientific analysis or (2) the systematic descrip-tion of the structures used in a language, or (3) the body of rules

accounting for such structures. Grammar iL distinct from mechanics

and usage.

IDIOLECT: The individual's unique way of speaking--the variety of languageresulting from the complex interaction of the speaker's age, sex,education, occupation, avocation, social class, and regional andethnic background--is called his idiolect.

LANGUACE: A language is normally composed of a set of dialects which sharethe main features of the language but which differ to some degree inaspects of phonology, grammar, and lexicon.

"Language is a dynamic system of learned, conventional, oral symbolsheld in common by members of some community, used by individual mem-bers of the society for the conduct of relatively precise patterns ofhuman interaction." (University of Minuesota Project English Center)

LEXICON: The lexicon of a language is its word stock, i.e. the words compris-ing the vocabulary of the language. The compilation of this word

stock, as done by lexicographers, is contained in dictionaries.

LINGUISTICS: Linguistics is the scientific study of language. The term lin-

guistics may be used to describe information derived from thisscientific study of language.

MORPHOLOGY: Morphology is the subdivision of grammar which deals with the struc-ture of words. Included. within this study are the rules for the addi-tion of prefixes and suffixes to word roots.

NONSTANDARD ENGLISH: Nonstandard English refers to dialects which differ fromthe regional standard in pronunciation, vocabulary, and/or grammar.

Nonstandard dialects are, most frequently, regionally variant typesof speech spoken by in-migrant groups, Such dialects may containfeatures characteristic of less prestigious social and economic levels

in a community, and often they are sustained as dialects by ghetto

circumstances,

PHONOLOGY: Phonology is the study of the sounds of a language or a dialect.

PRESTIGE DIALECT: As the name implies, a prestige dialect is the dialect ad-mired by speakers of other dialects. These are the dialects pre-ferred and used by educated and influential persons in each re,ion.For social and economic reasons, these prestige dialects are normallythe standard dialects for that particular region in which they arespoken.

REGIONAL DIALECT: A regional dialect is the variety of language spoken inone part of the general territory of a given language. A regional

dialect may have.several socio-economic varieties. (See social

dialect).

SOCIAL DIALECT: Social dialects, sometimes called class dialects, are thosedialects spoken by members of different socio-economic groups withina given geographic territory (or regional dialect area).

SYNTAX: Syntax is that part of grammar wtich deals with the structure ofword groups. It is concerned primarily with the study of the struc-ture of the sentence.

STANDARD ENGLISH: The phonetic, semantic, and grammatical patterns which areaccepted and used by the majority of the educated English speakingpeople in the United States form a series of regionally standardAmerican English dialects.

According to C.C. Fries, standard English is "The particular typeof English which is used in the conduct of the important affairs ofour people. It is also the type of English used by the sociallyacceptable of most of our communities and, insofar as that is true,it has become a social or class dialect in the U.S."

USAGE: Usage is . , set of relationships between certain nonlinguisticfactors and the forms of language. The study of usage deals withwords, sounds, and grammatical forms of a language and the way theseare customarily used.

Robert Pooley defines usage as "the application of external socialvalues to language in specific situations. . . subject to the varietiesand changes to be expected in human value situations."

An individual's usage is extremely complex because there are severalfactors influencing it besides custom: the speaker's age, sex, econ-omic status, cultural background, education, and purpose; the sizeand characteristics of his audience; and the occasior for speaking.(See idiolect).

APPENDIX B

SELECTED REFERENCES ON NONSTANDARD DIALECTS*

Allen, Harold B. "Expanding Frontiers in Dialect Study." 1967.

Bailey, Beryl L. "Linguistics on Llon-standard Language Patterns." 1965.

Baratz, Joan C. "Language and Cognitive Assessment of Negro Children:Assumptions and Research Needs." 1968.

Baratz, Joan and Povich E.A. "Grammatical Constructions in the Language ofthe Negro Preschool Child." 1967.

Davis, A. and McDavid, R. "A Description of the Chicago Speech Survey:Communication Barriers to the Culturally Deprived." 1964.

Davis, Alva. "Teaching Language and Reading, to Disadvantaged Negro Children."1967.

Dillard, J.L. "Negro Children's Dialect in the Inner City." 1967.

Deutsch, Martin. "The Disadvantaged Child and the Learning Process," 1963.

Entwisle, Doris R. "Developmental Sociolinguistics: Inner City Children."1967.

1967."Subcultural Differences in Children's Language Development."

"Word Associations of Disadvantaged Children." 1967.

Entwisle, D. and Greenberger, E. "Differences in the Language of Negro andWhite Grade-School Children 1, 2." 1968.

Green, William.

Gumperz, John J.Study."

John, Vera P.

"Language and the Culturally Different," 1965.

"The Social Group as a Primary Unit of Analysis in Dialect

"The Intellectual Development of Slum Children." 1963.

Keller, Suzanne.

Kockman, Thomas.

1....1.

"The Social Word of the Urban Slum Child." 1963.

"The Lexicon of American Negro Slang." 1967.

"'Rapping' in the Black Ghetto." 1969.

Labov, William. "The Social Stratifl-ation of English in New York City."(and several, other of his studies) 1966.

"The Non-standard Vernacular of the Negro Community." 1968.41=11..11..1,

* See the preceding bibliography for the complete reference.

Z-i

Labov, William. "A Preliminary Study of the Structure of English Used byNegro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City," 1965.

. "A Study of the Structure of English Used by Negro andPuerto Rican Speakers of New York City." 1967.

. "Systematic Relations of Standard and Non-standard Rules inthe Grammars of Negro Speakers." 1967.

Lesser, G., Fifer. G., and Clark, D. "Mental Abilities of Children in Dif-ferent Social and Cultural Groups." 1965.

Lin, San-Su. "Disadvantaged Student or Disadvantaged Teacher?" 1967.

Loban, Walter. "Problems 'in Oral English." 1966:

McDavid, Raven I. "American Social Dialects." 1965.

. "A Checklist of Significant Features for DiscriminatingSocial Dialects." 1967.

1966.

"Communication Barriers for the Culturally Deprived."

"Social Dialects and Professional Responsibility." 1969.

Osser, Harry. "Social-Class Factors in the Language Development of Pre-schoci,

Children." 1967.

. "The Syntactic Structures of 5-Year Old Culturally DeprivedChildren." 1966.

Pederson, Lee A. "Middle Class Negro Speech in Minneapolis," 1967.

"Non-Standard Negro Speech in Chicago." 1964.

"Some Structural Differences in the Spoechof Chicago Negroes."

1964.

Putnam, G.M. and O'Hern, E.M. "The Status Significance of an Isolated Urban

Dialect." 1955.

Pride, J.B. "Notes on Current Developments in the Study of Language in Culture

and Society." 1955.

Rohwer, William D. "Social-Class Differences In the Role of Linguistic Structures

in Paired-Associate Learning." 1967.

Shuy, Roger W. "Discovering American Dialects." 1967.

"A Study of Social Dialects in Detroit, Final Report." 1968.

"Linguistic Correlates of Speech Stratification." 1967.

Stewart, William A. "Research in Progress: Social Dialects of English."1967.

"Sociolinguistic Factors in the History of AmericanNegro Dialects." 1967.

"Urban Negro Speech: Sociolinguistic Factors AffectingEnglish Teaching." 1964.

Williamson, Juanita V. "The Speech of Negro High School Students in Memphis,Tennessee." 1968.

Wolfram, Walter A. "Sociolinguistic Implications for Educational Sequencing."1969.

141-/

APPENDIX C

LISTS OF DIALECT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STANDARD AND NONSTANDARD ENGLISH

Descriptive Lists

Wolfram (Negro)Labov (Negro)Baratz (Negro)Shuy (Negro)Williamson (Negro)Hernandez (Mexican-American)McDavid (General)

Pedagogical Lists

Lob do

Garvey and McFarlanePooleyNonstandard Dialect (pp. 5-15)

Appendix C and Appendix D are on loan from theERIC Clearinghouse on thr Teaching of English,508 S. Sixth Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820.

The lists of dialect differences (Appendix C)and the statements of pedagogical suggestions

. (Appendix D) have been deleted from the ERICreproduction of this reporttdue to'copyrightrestrictions.

-48-

References for "Lists of Dialect Differences" contained in Appendix C:

Walter A. Wolfram, "Sociolinguistic Implications for Educational Sequencing,"

(pre-publication manuscript). Center for Applied Linguistics,

February, 1969.

William Labov, "The Non-Standard Vernacular of the Negro Community: Some

Practical Suggestions." Position paper from Language Education

for the Disadvantaged. NDEA Report #3, June 10, 1968, pp. 4-6.

ERIC ED 016 947.

Joan Baratz, "Teaching Reading in an Urban Negro School System" in Teaching

Black Children to Read. Baratz and Shuy (Eds.), Center for

Applied Linguistics, 1969.

Roger W. Shuy, "A Linguistic Background fur Developing Beginning Reading

Materials for Black Children," in Teaching. Black CLildren to

Read. Baratz and Shuy (Eds.), Center for Applied Linguistics,

1969, pp. 117-137.

Janita Williamson, "Report On A Proposed Study of the Speech of Negro High

School Students in Memphis," Social Dialects and Language. ....

Learning.

Luis F. Hernandez, "Teaching English to the Culturally Disadvantaged Mexican-

American Student," English Journal, January, 1968.

Raven I. McDavid, Jr., "A Checklist of Significant Features for Discriminating

Social Dialects," Dimensions of Dialect, 1967.

Walter Loban, Problems in Oral English, Research Report #5. NCTE Committee on

Research. NCTE, Champaign, Illinois, 1966.

Catherine Garvey and Paul McFarlane, A Preliminary Study of Standard Speech

Patterns In the Baltimore City Public Schools. Report #16. The

Johns Hopkins University, March, 1968.

Robert C. Pooley, "A Perspective on Usage--Standard vs. Substandard," Language,

Linguistics, and School Programs, Weiss (Ed.). NCTE, Champaign,

Illinois, 1963.

Nonstandard Dialect, Board of Education of New York City and NCTE, 1967.

APPENDIX D

PEDAGOGICAL SUGGESTIONS

"Needed Concepts" -- Pooley

"Basic Linguistic Knowledge" Jacobs

"Concepts and Goals" -- NCTE

Program of Instruction -- NCTE

"Example of Teaching Progiem in Nonstandard 'Negro English" -- Loflin

From Robert C. Pooley, "Teaching Usage. Today and Tomorrow," English Journal,

December, 1968.

From Paul H. Jacobs, "Criteria for Evaluating High School English Programs,"

Engish Journal, December, 1968.

Frbm Nonstandard Dialects, National Council of Teachers of English and

Board of Education of New York City, 1967.

From Marvin D. Loflin; "A Teaching Problem in Nonstandard Negro English,"

English Journal, December, 1967.